FEBRUARY - 2019
TO: Premiers Moe and Notley via fax: SK: 306-787-0885 / AB: 780-427-1349
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019 / Edmonton - in revision
1) The national phase for publication of this 34 year unresolved B.C. labour case in which senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, was laid off in June of 1985, the sole teacher laid off under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35, was finalized by the end of 1918 by me. No compensation has been paid.
2) The international phase will be completed by the end of February. Following from a draft copy to be published on March 01-2019, are two salient sections applicable to the above two court sessions:
(3) Would public revelation of this case lead to the demise of the Liberal Party in the October Federal election? Coming on top of the former Minister of Justice caper with A.G. Jody Raybould-Wilson; most assuredly. The Tories have to decide. Either publicize the Employee's Case now or in the event of election success, face the entire gamut of lies from the Employee's Case on the selfsame day that they take their oath of Office. Lose the election without this revelation and they lose...everything....
(4) The failure of 'Tory' Saskatchewan Premier 'Hayseed' Moe, to call for Special Counsel in the Saskatoon version of this case where SK is fighting for its life against the imposed Carbon Tax within the context of the Employee's Case looming large with its imposed BILL 35 as a game changer, was thrown away by him. In this scenario, the federal Liberals need a knock-out punch in SK to maximize their election message in October. In this regard, two decades ago, columnist Dave Brown claimed that the legal fraternity is the country's 'strongest union'. In brief, a fifth column has mounted a weak case in SK as the judiciary 'hang together'. Exposing this perfidy would require a Premier to appoint Special Counsel to the Employee's Case. Is Alberta Premier Notley up to the challenge considering the apparent failure of Moe?
3) The Edmonton Court plaintiff factum is currently being revised (Insert FORM 10) in order to be more compliant with Registrar requirements. Hopefully, we can avoid the type of 'running a court within a court' which I have experienced a number of times including the Saskatoon Registry.
Yours truly, Roger Callow
TO: Saskatoon Court Registrar
sent 1 page by fax: 306-933-5135 or 306-975-4818
Mailing Address: Court House, 520 Spadina Cresc.E Saskatoon, SK S7K 3G7
REFERENCE: QBG 52 of 2019
TOPIC: One hour telephone conferencing slated for FEBRUARY 26 10.00 A.M.
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff
1285 Cahill Drive E #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
1) Would someone from the court Registrar please telephone me by Tuesday February 19-2019, to confirm the above one hour conferencing time. In this request, I wish to avoid the taped message...'I am out of the office right now'...sure, they are on a 6 month sabbatical....
2) As the Defendants, The West Vancouver School Trustees and the West Vancouver Teachers Association have not filed for an appearance, I will be the only one in attendance. (Please no private voir dire with the Defendants regarding Appearance as happened earlier in a Regina Appeal Court as I will refuse to be in attendance under those circumstances.)
3) Please provide the name of the presiding judge and state whether he or she is Special Counsel. If not, it would appear that two of the three topics; namely, the nature of imposed legislation (B.C. BILL 35 1985) and the very serious matter relating to the alleged fraudulent activities of two Ontario judges will not be covered. The topic of disclosure underlies all three entities and the meeting will focus on this topic although ignoring the other two topics comes with a price tag.
4) If I do not hear by Tuesday, February 19, from the court, I will presume that no contact is to be made by them and I will react accordingly.
Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff
cc Premier Moe by fax: 306-787-0885
HOW THE NORTH WAS LOST
(by letting the courts get away with murder...of the judicial system)
1) First of all the Senator Duffy Story. Defense Counsel for him opened with a weak blow; namely examining the role of how government factotum, Nigel Wright, was able to escape a bribery charge thus neutering any charge of Duffy alone. The stronger case should have named Harper's Secretary, Ray Novaks, in terms of his communication with P.M Harper. If Duffy had followed that angle, he would most likely have won his $8-1/2 million suit against the government. And that is the point. Both the judge and the lawyers are there to first protect Justice Canada at the expense of hapless victims.
2) Vice Admiral Norman is facing a similar conundrum. His lawyer, Marie Heinen, wants to have the case dropped for 'abuse of process' which would greatly reduce Norman's chances of suing the government similar to Duffy. To be sure the judge is watching this matter closely to make sure it does not go 'south' for Justice Canada. For my part, I would replace Heinen.
3) The dilemma Harper would have faced is not unlike the one that Trudeau is facing regarding the SNC Lavalin repercussions accentuated by public comments from Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick whom should be fired on the spot for his outrageous comments.
4) The elephant in the Judicial Room is the Employee's Case; the 34 year unresolved labour issue where no compensation has been paid. As a media boycott event, I closed down the story as a national event at the end of 2018. I am currently closing down this case as an international story drawing by the end of February, including as I do, the role of President Trump on Canadian matters.
5) While the story of my senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35 was ostensibly for reasons of declining enrolment; in fact it was for whistleblowing. I was a 'thorn in the side of the School Board' declared Justice Mary Southin in 1986 although she didn't say why when she quashed the arbitration for failing to show a causal factor leaving me in what turns out to be a 34 year kafkaesque search for justice. The same charge has been leveled against Norman for giving the cold shoulder to the Irving shipbuilding interests of Nova Scotia in favour of Quebec.
6) Two unintended outcomes have come from the Employee's Case case:
a) School Boards will disappear as they did in Nova Scotia after my unsuccessful constitutional challenge there amid the usual skulduggery. What Premier wishes a $20 million lawsuit against a whacko School Board like West Vancouver?
b) To avoid the 'sweetheart deal' as most Employer-Union cases are; union clients must have their own lawyer ($10,000?) paralleling the Union lawyer. If I had done that, I would have fired the Union lawyer when he refused to place the School Trustees on the stand to attest to lay-off figures; in effect, asking them to perjure themselves which they would not do for this Union inspired lay-off (see web for those details). If I had done that; there would have been no subsequent legal cases which led to the ultimate demise of the Justice System over a period of 34 years amid considerable judicial malfeasance.
TO: Saskatoon Court:f. 306-975-4818 ATTN: Glen Metivier-Registrar 1 Page
cc Premier Moe via fax: SK: 306-787-0885
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019
In your contact with the Premier's Office with Premier Moe on MONDAY, FEB.25-2019:
1) Would you confirm that the court in Saskatoon will /will not hear my action on the above filed number in the event that they receive no confirmation from the Defendants? Both Defendants have ignored any rule deadlines and did not file for an appearance in the last hearing in British Columbia in 2018. A one-hour teleconferencing with just myself to answer any court questions raised is requested as the case is completely laid out in my factum plus correspondence in your hands as well as that of Premier Moe.
2) Is Special Counsel with experience in constitutional issues and fraud - which includes the names of two Ontario judges - being assigned this case?
3) I will await your response which may be by telephone, fax or e-mail up to the end of the business day on Monday.
4) My theory as explained to you and Premier Moe earlier is that a weak case has been mounted by the SK judiciary in which a victory for the Liberal government is required in SK for political purposes elsewhere. For other reasons, the Tory Party wish a win for the Liberals for political purposes as well as that outcome could be used to launch a Tory fight in ON. The losers? Why SK at large and Premier Moe in particular. Any Appeal to the SCofC under these circumstances would be an expensive boondoggle for the sole sake of excusing 'hayseed Moe's' colossal failure. My constitutional challenge in the above case with the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) would greatly bolster the SK case.
cc PMO-Lametti / AB Premier Notley
ADDENDUM: Reference: 2016 (Sub-heading) ALBERTA / AUGUST 08-2016 Letter to Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould from Roger Callow which parallels her 2019 experience in the Lavalin Case: Point 7) disclosure And whom was the third SCofC judge whose ethics I challenged besides Wagner (incumbent SCofC Chief Justice) and Coté ? Why none other than 'retiring' SCofC Judge, Thomas Cromwell, her current personal advisor in the Lavalin Case which parallels this one!